JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged his order of compulsory retirement Annexure 9 dated 24th July, 1985. 2. The petitioner while working as Reader to Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara was compulsorily retired. He had put in 28 years of service. A Screening Committee was constituted by the District Judge, Jodhpur to screen persons who have completed 25 years of service and out lived their utility to be retired in public interest. The Committee considered the petitioner's case along with some other employees and recommended the petitioner under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules to retire. Thus the petitioner was retired by the District Judge, Jodhpur under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Aggrieved against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be heard by appellate authority. The appellate authority after hearing the petitioner and perusing the record came to the conclusion that the petitioner has been rightly compulsorily retired in public interest. Aggrieved against this the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the Circular of the Government dated 26th April, 1972 the Appointing Authority has to act upon the recommendation of the Screening Committee and the same has been found to be bad in State of Rajasthan v. Sita Ram Joshi D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 77 of 1970 decided on May 14, 1970 as well as in the case of Manmal v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 42 of 1976 decided on November 26, 1984 . I am afraid submission of Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner is with out any basis. In the present case the District Judge is the Appointing Authority and the District Judge is the authority to decide whether it will be in the public interest to retain the petitioner in service or not. The District Judge after satisfying himself has passed the order of compulsory retirement which is evident from the Annexure 9. Thus, the ratio laid down in the case of Sita Ram Joshi and Man Mal have no relevance to the present case. Thus the contention of the learned Counsel is without any basis and it is rejected. 3. The learned Counsel secondly submitted that there was no material to show that the efficiency of the petitioner has been impaired. Thus, the ratio laid down in the case of Sita Ram Joshi and Man Mal have no relevance to the present case. Thus the contention of the learned Counsel is without any basis and it is rejected. 3. The learned Counsel secondly submitted that there was no material to show that the efficiency of the petitioner has been impaired. I am afraid this submission is also without any basis. The appellate authority while considering the material on record has found that there was material to compulsorily retire the petitioner, therefore, there is no reason to differ with the rinding recorded by the appellate authority as well as on the basis of the findings recorded by the appointing authority, who on the basis of the material has found that the petitioner is not a fit person to be retained in service in public interest. Thus, I do not see any reason to differ with the finding of the appellate authority (learned Judge of this Court) as well as with the District Judge, Appointing Authority. 4. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the order of compulsory retirement is malafide. I have gone through the allegations of malafide raised in the petition and I am not impressed with those allegations to show that any malafide can be inferred in the present situation. More so the matter has been objectively assessed in the administrative side also by the Appellate Authority. Thus, nothing turns on the question of malafide. 5. The learned Counsel has lastly submitted that under note below to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the R.S.R. that while an enquiry is pending the incumbent should not be compulsorily retired to short circuit the enquiry. Present principle contained in the note below to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the R.S.R. is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. It is admitted fact that the petitioner had a bad record. Earlier a notice under Rule 86 of the R.S.R. was given to the petitioner thereafter nothing has happened. Simply issuing of notice cannot mean that a regular enquiry is pending. Moreover when the petitioner's efficiency has been impaired and Competent Authority after reviewing the material on record has found that the petitioner is not a fit person to be retained in public interest such issuance of notice under Rule 86 the RSR cannot vitiate the order of compulsory retirement of petitioner. Moreover when the petitioner's efficiency has been impaired and Competent Authority after reviewing the material on record has found that the petitioner is not a fit person to be retained in public interest such issuance of notice under Rule 86 the RSR cannot vitiate the order of compulsory retirement of petitioner. It is not a regular enquiry which is pending against the incumbent. In this connection the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Jeth Mal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 42 of 1976 decided on November 26, 1984 , I am afraid that case is wholly distinguishable from the case in hand. In the case of Jethmal (supra) a regular enquiry was pending for mis-conduct and during the pendency of this enquiry the action was taken. Such is not the case here. Thus, this submission has also no merit. 6. In the result I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Dismissed. *******